THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

by
Loraine Boettner D.D.*
(taken from his book “Roman Catholicism” first published 1962)

1. Definition. 2. The Nature of the Pope’s Infallibility.3. Infallibility not Taught in the Bible. 4.
History of the Doctrine Before 1870. 5. The Vatican Council of 1870. 6. Errors of the Popes.

1. DEFINITION

The Vatican Council which met in Rome, in 1870, defined the doctrine of the in-
fallibility of the pope as follows:

‘...We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he
speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians,
by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be
held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, is possessed
of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for
defining doctrines regarding faith and morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman
Pontiff of themselves—and not by virtue of the consent of the Church—are irreformable.’

To this pronouncement there was attached the inevitable anathema of the

church on all who dare to disagree:

‘But if any one—which may God forbid! —shall presume to contradict this our definition: let
him be anathema.’

It will be noticed that in this pronouncement there are three important restric-
tions: (1) Infallibility is not claimed for every statement made by the pope, but
only for those made when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, seated in his papal
chair, the chair of Peter, and speaking in his official capacity as the head of the
church. (2) The pronouncement must be intended as binding on the whole church.
Infallibility is not claimed for statements addressed to particular segments or
groups within the church which may relate more or less to local conditions. And
(3) the pronouncements must have to do with matters pertaining to ‘faith and
morals.’ In actual practice, however, the term ‘faith and morals’ is broad enough
and elastic enough to cover almost any and every phase of religious and civil life.
Practically every public issue can be looked upon as having some bearing on faith
or morals or both. The Vatican takes full advantage of this, and the result is that
within the Roman Church almost any statement issued by the pope is assumed to
be authoritative.

2. THE NATURE OF THE POPE’S INFALLIBILITY

The doctrine of papal infallibility does not mean that the pope is infallible as a
man. It does not relate to his personal habits. It does not mean that he is sinless.
Nor does it mean that he is inspired as were the apostles so that he can write
Scripture. It means rather that in his official capacity as teacher of the church he

1
has the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that he can interpret and state clearly and
positively doctrines which allegedly have been a part of the heritage of the church
from the beginning. Theoretically he cannot produce new doctrines, but some of
the decrees issued have had that effect.
That the alleged infallibility cannot relate to personal morals is perfectly clear
in the light of history. We merely state a fact when we say that some of the popes
have been grossly immoral. That was one of the contributing factors in the rapid
progress of the Protestant Reformation. Roman Catholic historians readily admit
this. Some of the popes have been so illiterate that it would be absurd to attribute
to them scholarly ability sufficient to propound doctrine. Even Cardinal Bel-
larmine, a Jesuit and a papal champion, now a canonized saint, frequently warned
pope Clement VIII (1592—1605) that, not being a theologian, he could not expect
to understand the Molinist controversy (concerning semi-Pelagianism). Words
such as those of Pius V (1566—1572), to the effect that all the Huguenots should
be exterminated, are explained away on the ground that in such cases the pope
was not speaking ex cathedra.
It is interesting to notice that the popes, in issuing their decrees or pronounce-
ments, do not label them ex cathedra or not ex cathedra. We may be sure that if
this power were a reality they would not hesitate so to label them, that in fact they
would find it very advantageous to do so. Surely it would be of inestimable value
to know which deliverances are ex cathedra and which are not, which are infalli-
ble and authoritative and which are only private observations and therefore as fal-
lible as those of anyone else. It seems impossible to secure such a list. We may
safely assume that the proclamation of pope Pius XII regarding the assumption of
the Virgin Mary (1950) was ex cathedra. According to some Roman Catholic
writers such utterances are relatively infrequent. It is also interesting to notice that
neither the Church of Rome in her corporate capacity, nor any of her ‘infallible’
popes, have ever given the world the benefit of their sanctity and infallibility in a
commentary on the Bible, which assuredly would be a blessing of inestimable
value. In fact they have never published an infallible exposition of even one chap-
ter.
How then is anyone to know whether any given pronouncement is ex cathedra
and therefore infallible? The pope presumably would be the most likely person to
know his own intentions. How does he distinguish between pronouncements? Can
he call up this peculiar kind of inspiration at any time? Does he have a particular
sensation or feeling of any kind when exercising it?
A rather amusing aspect of this whole affair is the extreme reluctance of all the
popes since 1870, when this decree came into effect, to use this amazing gift. The
church and the world have passed through many controversies and have been
faced with many perplexing problems in the solution of which some infallible
pronouncements with divine authority behind them would have been of inestima-
ble blessing. But instead the hierarchy as well as others have often been perplexed
and have made many mistakes—we need recall only such events as the support
given by the Vatican to Mussolini in his rise to power and in his military cam-
paigns in Ethiopia and Spain, the concordat signed with Hitler, and the unfailing
support given the Spanish dictator Franco since he first came to power. During

2
these perplexing times the popes have been as confused as anyone else. They have
merely issued ‘encyclicals’ (formal letters, in Latin, addressed to all the bishops),
for which no infallibility is claimed, and which can be modified or set aside by a
successor. But of what conceivable value is papal infallibility unless it be to en-
sure clarity and certainty of statement when circumstances make it desirable that
the church should speak with authority? Furthermore, the procedure now followed
when a pope wants to make an important statement is that he asks certain theolo-
gians or bishops to make a study of the subject and to give him their report. The
report is then submitted to many others, whose opinions over a long period of
time are considered. Last of all he decides on the matter. But if he possesses the
attribute of infallibility why should he consult with theologians and bishops who
individually are subject to error? Why is he not able to make the pronouncement
merely upon his own authority? We take this reluctance as prima facie evidence
that all concerned know that in reality no such infallibility exists, and that they do
not want to run the risk of being discredited by such statements.
The average Roman Catholic layman assumes that anything the pope puts in
writing relating to faith and morals is as infallible as if it had been uttered by
Christ Himself. But representative churchmen are more cautious and warn that it
is not easy to distinguish between ex cathedra and non ex cathedra statements.
The notion that any human being is in any way infallible does not commend
itself to the mind of a Christian. To most people such a claim does not seem wor-
thy of serious consideration. There can hardly be any more brazen exhibition of
arrogance, bigotry, and intolerance than this claim that the pope, a mere man, is
the very mouthpiece of God on earth, God’s sole deputy, and that he can impose
dogmatic decrees under pain of excommunication and death in this life and the
loss of eternal salvation in the next. How true the words of England’s Lord Acton,
himself a Roman Catholic, who after visiting Rome and seeing at first hand the
workings of the papacy, wrote: ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power cor-
rupts absolutely.’
How utterly different is this attitude of the popes from that of Peter, in whose
succession they claim to follow, who humbly called himself a ‘fellow-elder’ and
who warned so clearly against ‘lording it over the charge allotted to you’! (1 Peter
5:1-3). And, more important, how utterly different from the attitude set forth by
Christ, who said: ‘Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and
their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but
whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever
would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not
to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many’
(Matt. 20: 25-28)!
The doctrine of infallibility appeals to many people who are poorly informed
and who are adrift spiritually. These people know practically nothing about the
Bible. Consequently, they have no sound theology on which to base their actions.
Often times they are bewildered by the conflicting claims of the various churches
and by the disappointing conduct of some church members. Particularly in the
spiritual realm, a state of uncertainty is a state of misery; so the Roman Church
finds this situation ideally suited for her purpose. She skillfully presents her

3
claims to speak with divine authority, and it is not surprising that there are those
who respond. These people are fascinated by the call of a church which promises
stability and calm. If the priest or the church says a thing is right, then for them it
is right. Their consciences are relieved in that they need no longer trouble them-
selves about the right or wrong of certain actions. They tend to surrender without
first examining the promised certainty, only to find after it is too late, that they
have been cruelly deceived and that they cannot safely surrender their consciences
to the rule of any man or church.

3. INFALLIBILITY NOT TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE

The silence of Scripture concerning an infallible church or concerning Peter, as

an infallible pope is, in itself, sufficient to disprove the idea. Yet the most promi-
nent characteristic of the papacy, the thing that sets it apart from all other
churches, is its claim to supremacy, authority, and infallibility. Had there been an
infallible source of authority in the church, it is in conceivable that Peter, the al-
leged bishop of Rome, writing two general epistles and mentioning his departure
which he indicated was close at hand (2 Peter 1:15), would not have acquainted
the members of the church as to what guide or authority they were to follow after
he was taken from them, or how that guide or authority was to be chosen. But he
does not even mention the subject. On the other hand, Christ and the apostles
warned against false Christs, false prophets, false teachers who would arise and
make such claims.
The Bible says: ‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of
God’ (Rom. 8:14). But the Church of Rome demands that all follow blindly and
with implicit faith the interpretation of the Bible given by the pope and his hierar-
chy. In doing so, it usurps the place of the Holy Spirit as teacher and leader. That
Peter, the alleged first pope, was not infallible as a teacher of faith and morals is
evident from his inconsistency of conduct at Antioch when he refused to eat with
Gentile Christians lest he offend certain Jews from Jerusalem (Gal. 2:11-16). In-
stead, he would have fastened the ritual requirements of Judaism on the new
Christian church. This should have been no problem at all for him if he had re-
ceived the special guidance of the Holy Spirit claimed by the Church of Rome for
the pope. Furthermore, if any one of the apostles was to be chosen as the infallible
head of the church, it would seem that that one should have been Paul, and not
Peter, for both as a man and as a teacher Paul was a far greater personality. But
the fact is that the New Testament nowhere gives the slightest indication that any
man was to be chosen for that position.
In the New Testament, in addition to the two letters written by Peter, we have
thirteen written by Paul. But in none of those does he refer to Peter as the bishop
of Rome, or of any other church. In Paul’s most important letter, that to the
church of Rome, he does not so much as mention Peter. In his letter to Timothy he
mentions the office of bishop or elder, but he does not mention that of archbishop,
supreme bishop, or pope. Surely if such an important office as supreme bishop or
pope existed he would have mentioned it. Nor in the literature of the early church
during the second or third century is there any mention of a supreme bishop or

4
pope. There are references to Christ as the Chief Shepherd, but none to any man
as having that or any similar title.
The fact is that we have our infallible rule of faith and morals in the New Tes-
tament Scriptures. And having that, it is not necessary to bestow infallibility on
any man. For one who wants to know the truth, we point him to the Scriptures and
say: ‘Here it is. Believe and practise what is taught here and you will live. The
one who turns aside from this rule will not have life.’

4. HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE BEFORE 1870

We may well ask: If the doctrine of infallibility was taught by Christ or by any
of the apostles, why did the Roman Catholic Church wait for more than eighteen
centuries before giving it acknowledgment? Dr. Geddes MacGregor, in his book,
The Vatican Revolution, says:

‘In spite of the early recognition of the importance of the See of Rome and the consequent pres-
tige of its bishop, there is not even a hint of an ex cathedra notion before the eleventh century.
Even in the fourteenth, in the lively debates on the nature of papal pronouncements, no such com-
mon notion was being either combated or upheld’ (p. 137).

And Edward J. Tanis, in his booklet, What Rome Teaches, says:

‘Ireneus, who was a disciple of Polycarp (a disciple of John the apostle), died about the year
200. He knew what the early church believed and taught, and he wrote many books against here-
sies of various kinds, but Ireneus never taught that Christ intended any bishop to be the infallible
head of the church.
‘Tertullian was the greatest theologian of the early church before Augustine, the learned scholar
who developed the doctrine of the Trinity, emphasizing the equality of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit. He died in the year 220. If any man knew what Christ and the apostles taught, Tertullian
knew it. But Tertullian never heard of an infallible head of the church.
‘One of the ablest scholars in the early church was Jerome, who died in 420. He provided the
church with a new and better translation of the Scriptures, and until this day his Latin translation
of the Bible has been in use in the Roman Catholic Church, evidence that this scholar is held in
high esteem among Roman Catholics. But even so great a scholar did not teach that the church had
an infallible head.
‘Gregory the Great was one of the most powerful and influential popes, bishop of the congrega-
tion in Rome from 590 to 604. He made a large contribution to the improvement of the preaching
and music of the church and was an ardent defender of the Catholic traditions, but Gregory never
taught that he was the infallible head of the whole church. Foakes-Jackson, the scholarly historian,
quotes Gregory the Great as saying that the title of pope as “Ecumenical Bishop” (bishop of the
whole church) was “proud and foolish” and “an imitation of the devil”’ (p. 17).

The clear teaching of history is that the office of pope was a gradual develop-
ment. The early bishops in Rome knew nothing of it. They neither claimed the
title nor exercised the power. But as time went on, particularly after the fall of the
Roman empire, more and more power, political as well as ecclesiastical, fell into
the hands of the bishop of Rome, and so the papacy developed.
For centuries before the doctrine of papal infallibility was adopted, there was
much difference of opinion as to where that infallibility lay. Some held that it
rested in the councils speaking for the church. Two councils, that of Constance

5
(1415), which deposed the first pope John XXIII after he had held the office for
five years and had appointed several cardinals and bishops who continued to hold
their offices, and that of Basle (1432), declared that ‘even the pope is bound to
obey the councils.’ At another time it was held that infallibility lay in acts of the
councils approved by the pope. But in 1870 it was declared to reside in the pope
alone, and all Roman Catholics are now compelled to accept that view. The Jesu-
its, because of their influence at the Vatican and their ability to influence the
popes, supported that view. But the principal question remains: Which council
pronouncement was ‘infallible,’ that of Constance and Basle? Or that of the Vati-
can Council? Clearly they are contradictory and cannot both be right.
That the popes have not always been considered infallible is made clear by a
review of events in the late 14th and early 15th centuries. Such a survey is given
by Dr. Harris as follows:

‘In the 1300’s, the popes moved to Avignon, France, and for seventy years were manifestly
subservient to the French kings. This has been called the “Babylonian Captivity” of the papacy.
Following this time, Gregory XI went back to Rome. His successor, Urban VI (1378—1389) made
an election promise to return to France, but election promises are not always kept and he later re-
fused. The French then called his election illegal and elected a new rival pope, Clement VII (1378-
1394). This schism continued until a council was called at Pisa in 1409, which deposed both rival
popes and elected a new one, Alexander V (1409—1410). The rival popes refused to accept the
council and so three popes were on the scene. After the death of Alexander V, he was succeeded
by John XXIII whom Roman Catholics do not acknowledge and whose name the present pope has
taken to show the illegality of the first John XXIII. Roman Catholics do not accept the Council of
Pisa as an ecumenical council (that is, one representative of the whole church). But most of them
accept Alexander V whom it elected! (Hefele, History of the Church Councils, Vol. 1, p. 58). The
Council of Pisa declared that a council is superior to a pope.
‘The schism continued and the Council of Constance (14141418) was called. This council
deposed all three popes and elected a new one, Martin V (1417—1431) . . . The Council of Con-
stance also declared that a council is superior to a pope, and thus it acted to depose three popes at
once. Hefele, one of the best known Roman authorities, takes the odd position that the first forty
sessions of the council were not ecumenical but that sessions 41-45, presided over by Martin V
whom they elected, were ecumenical. Martin proceeded to confirm all the decrees of the first forty
sessions except those that minimized the papacy. Here, of course, was the pope’s dilemma. If the
earlier sessions were valid, the Council was supreme over the pope. If not, the other popes were
not deposed and Martin V was not rightly elected! The Vatican Council of 1870 declared: “They
err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgment of the Roman
Pontiff to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.” This is
wonderful. The pope is higher than a council. The Vatican Council made him so! But a previous
council, just as regular, had denied him to be so’ (Article, The Bible Presbyterian Reporter, Dec.,
1958).

The Council of Constance declared that ‘every lawfully convoked ecumenical

council representing the church derives its authority immediately from Christ, and
every one, the pope included, is subject to it in matters of faith, in the healing of
schism, and the reformation of the Church.’ But the Vatican Council of 1870 has
decreed that infallibility is vested in the pope as head of the church, when speak-
ing ex cathedra.
There were times during the Middle Ages when the popes increased their
power until they were the unquestioned rulers in both the church and the state.
Some of them deposed kings and lesser civil officials and could imprison or

6
commit individuals to servitude for life. The decree of excommunication, directed
against individuals, in whom those excommunicated were cut off from the church
and were placed outside the protection of the civil law, and the interdict, by which
whole nations were branded as outlaws and placed under the ban, were terrible
things. Some popes took it upon themselves to declare any political action not
pleasing to them null and void, as Innocent III did with Magna Carta after it had
been wrested by the people of England from a despotic king, or as Pius V did in
1570 when he attempted to ‘uncrown’ Queen Elizabeth I of England, and to re-
lease the people of England from allegiance to her. The Roman Catholic ideal that
the pope should be able to crown and uncrown kings, and that kings and other
civil rulers should acknowledge that their power comes from God through the
pope as God’s representative on earth. Where the Roman Church has been able to
realize its ideal it has made civil rulers vassals of the pope.
Before 1870 the ultimate authority commonly acknowledged in the Roman
Church was the church speaking through its councils. While the doctrine of papal
infallibility had been discussed for some centuries, it had never met with general
favour. Instead, it had been repugnant to many of the most eminent scholars and
theologians and to a large majority of the hierarchy. For nearly two hundred years
before the Vatican Council the Roman Catholic bishops, clergy and laity of Eng-
land and Ireland had denied that infallibility was a doctrine of the church. In 1825,
for instance, when the restoration of political privileges to English Roman Catho-
lics was under discussion in Parliament, a British government commission asked a
panel of Irish Roman Catholics if the Roman Church held that the pope was infal-
lible. The bishops correctly replied that it did not. On the basis of that assurance
the privileges were restored.
Two catechisms in general use before 1870 verify this position. Keenan’s A
Doctrinal Catechism, asks: ‘Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be
infallible?’ And the answer is: ‘This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the
Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it is re-
ceived and enforced by the teaching body, that is, the bishops of the church’ (p.
305). When pope Pius IX decreed papal infallibility in 1870, this question and
answer were quietly omitted from the catechism without note, comment or expla-
nation. The Catechism of the Catholic Religion gave substantially the same reply
(p. 87).
It is well known that Cardinal Newman was strongly opposed to the promulga-
tion of the doctrine of infallibility. But having left the Church of England in order
to join the Roman Church, and having given the latter such fulsome praise, he was
powerless to prevent the change and lacked the courage to abandon the church of
his choice. Shortly before the decree was issued he wrote to a friend, comparing
the impending decree with that setting forth the Immaculate Conception which
was issued in 1854: ‘As to the Immaculate Conception, by contrast there was
nothing sudden, or secret, in the proposal . . .This has taken us all by surprise.’
And on January 28, 1870, while the council was in session, he wrote to Bishop
Ullathorne, deploring what seemed imminent, and asked: ‘What have we done to
be treated as the Faithful never were treated before? Why should an aggressive
and insolent faction (by which he meant the Jesuits) be allowed to make the hearts

7
of the just to mourn whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful?’ It was a bitter pill
for Newman to swallow, but he submitted and acknowledged papal infallibility.

5. THE VATICAN COUNCIL OF 1870

The council which ratified the infallibility decree was clearly packed in favour
of the Jesuit-controlled papal party. MacGregor, who has made a special study of
this council and its effect on the Roman Church, says:

‘Out of the 541 prelates from Europe, the Italian peninsula, with a population of 27 million,
was represented by 276, or 11 more than the whole of the rest of the continent including Britain
and Ireland. . . . Even more horrifying is the fact that those of the Papal States that had not at that
time been seized, and which had a population of less than three-quarters of a million, were repre-
sented by sixty-two bishops, while five million Roman Catholics elsewhere were represented by
only three bishops—those of Paris, Cambrai and Cologne—all three critical of the standpoint of
the papalist party. . . . It was calculated in an anonymous pamphlet circulated in Rome after the
Council had been in operation for five months and attributed to Mgr. Darboy, Archbishop of Paris,
that one hundred and ninety-one members of the Council had no constitutional right to be there at
all’ (The Vatican Revolution, pp. 28, 29).

The church historian, Philip Schaff, says there was strong opposition to the call
for the council, and that delegates representing 80 million Roman Catholics were
opposed to it. A preliminary vote in secret session gave the delegates a limited
opportunity to express themselves. Eighty-eight delegates voted against it, 65
voted for it with reservations, and over 50 abstained. But the papal party was in
firm control and easily carried the final voting. To take sides against the strong-
willed pope and against the Jesuits, a minority had to be particularly courageous
to express itself at all. It was a foregone conclusion that the decree would be
passed. Opposition clearly was futile, and could mean reprisals affecting the dele-
gates’ present positions or threatening injury to any hopes of future promotion.
Before the final vote was taken, 410 bishops petitioned in favour of the dogma,
and 162 against it.
Among those who opposed the decree was the scholarly Strossmayer, Bishop
of Diakovár, Croatia, who made a famous speech in which he declared boldly:

‘I have set myself to study with the most serious attention the Old and New Testaments, and I
have asked these venerable monuments of truth to make known to me if the holy pontiff, who pre-
sides here, is the true successor of St. Peter, vicar of Christ, and the infallible doctor of the church.
I find in the apostolic days no question of a pope, successor to St. Peter, the vicar of Jesus Christ,
any more than a Mohammed who did not then exist. Now having read the whole New Testament, I
declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the
papacy as it exists at this moment.’

And in concluding his speech he said:

‘I have established: (1) that Jesus gave to His apostles the same power that He gave to St. Peter.
(2) That apostles never recognized in St. Peter the vicar of Jesus Christ. (3) That Peter never
thought of being pope, and never acted as if he were a pope. (4) That the councils of the first four
centuries, while they recognized the high position which the bishop of Rome occupied on account
of Rome, only accorded to him the pre-eminence of honour, never of power or jurisdiction. (5)

8
That the holy fathers in the famous passage, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my
church,” never understood that the church was built on Peter (super Petrum) but on the rock (su-
per petram). That is, on the confession of the faith of the apostle. I conclude victoriously, with
history, with reason, with logic, with good sense, and with a Christian conscience, that Jesus
Christ did not confer any supremacy on St. Peter, and that the bishops of Rome did not become
sovereigns of the church, but only by confiscating one by one all the rights of the episcopate.’

The discussion was abruptly closed before all the opponents had been heard.
When the vote was to be taken practically all of those who were opposed to the
decree absented themselves, since they did not want to be officially on record
against it. Five hundred and thirty three delegates answered in the affirmative, 2
answered in the negative, and 106 were absent. And well might any delegate hesi-
tate before voting against the decree, for to it would be attached the anathema: ‘If
any one—which may God forbid!—shall presume to contradict this our defini-
tion, let him be anathema.’
The decree having been passed, all the bishops were required to give their con-
sent. MacGregor writes:
‘Some of the recalcitrant bishops were exceedingly dilatory in sending in their submission. But
they did, and the papalists have ever since made a great deal of this fact. The alternative to sub-
mission was excommunication. This extreme penalty is terrible for a devout layman, since it de-
prives him of the sacraments, the greatest solace in a Catholic life. It is even worse for a priest for
it cuts him off absolutely from every friend he is likely to have, not to mention his livelihood,
making him at worst an object of contempt, at best an object of pity. But for a bishop excommuni-
cation is a sentence almost past endurance. Even the most heroic could hardly be expected to face
it’ (The Vatican Revolution, p. 63).

Thus the Roman Church, having no sure Scriptural anchorage concerning the
problem of authority, drifted about for centuries before solving this problem. As
we have indicated, some of the strongest opposition to the infallibility decree
came from within the Roman Church. The leading German scholar, Dollinger,
who had been a professor of church history and theology for forty-seven years,
strenuously opposed the decree, and insisted that the three leading criteria in all
such controversies—universality, antiquity, and consent—were clearly lacking.
He could not be induced to change his mind, and was excommunicated on April
17, 1871. A further result of the decree was that a small group of anti-infallibilists
met in Munich, Germany, in September, 1871, withdrew from the Roman Catho-
lic Church, and formed the Old Catholic’ Church, which, although not as well
known as it should be, continues to this day and serves as a salutary and incon-
venient reminder of the outrage perpetrated against the leading German scholar of
the Roman Catholic Church.
By its vote the Council in effect abdicated its power and acknowledged that
there was nothing that any future council could do that could not be done as well
or better by the pope himself. Since the pope is acknowledged to have the guid-
ance of the Holy Spirit and therefore to possess every power that a council could
have, he had no particular need to call a council. This was clearly foreseen by
Döllinger who, in a monumental work, Papal Infallibility (1871) wrote:

9
 ‘Councils will for the future be superfluous: the bishops will no doubt be assembled in Rome
now and then to swell the pomp of a papal canonization or some other grand ceremony, but they
will have nothing to do with the dogma. If they wish to confirm a papal decision.. . this would be
bringing lanterns to aid the light of the noonday sun.
‘If the bishops know the view and will of the pope on any question, it would be presumptuous
and idle to vote against it. An ecumenical assembly of the church can have no existence, properly
speaking, in the presence of an “ordinarius ordinari orum” and infallible teacher of faith, though,
of course, the pomp, ceremonial, speeches, and voting of a council may be displayed to the gaze of
the world.
‘Bishops who have been obliged to swear “to maintain, defend, increase, and advance the rights,
honours, privileges, and authority” of their Lord the Pope—and every bishop takes this oath—
cannot regard themselves, or be regarded by the Christian world, as free members of a free coun-
cil.’

The practical effect of the infallibility decree has been to stifle the development
of theological doctrine within the Roman Church. For only the pope can speak
with authority, and when he speaks there can be no opposition. No longer can a
church council or a theologian appeal to the Scriptures as against the pope. Paul
says: ‘The word of God is not bound’ (2 Tim. 2:9). But by this decree the Word of
God is frozen and chained down by a well-nigh unbreakable chain.
It is interesting to notice that in early Christian and later Roman Catholic
Church history there have been but twenty-one ecumenical councils, the latest be-
ing the Second Vatican Council, which was called by pope John XXIII, and
which began its sessions in Rome, in October, 1962. It would seem, however, that
such a council can be little more than a puppet gathering, since any action that it
may take can become effective only after that action has been approved by the
pope. It is safe to say that nothing will be done contrary to the pope’s wishes.
MacGregor calls the infallibility decree ‘the most momentous decision in the
history of the Roman Church’ (p. 3). He says that it ‘sounded the death knell to
the democratic element in the Roman Catholic tradition’; and adds that, ‘So abso-
lute is the papal authority that not even the entire church may dare to review or
modify the pope’s judgment in any way. If the whole of the rest of the church
should disagree with the pope, the whole of the rest of the church would be in er-
ror’ (p. 6).
That the Vatican Council of 1870 marks a turning point in the history of the
Roman Church is clear. For centuries the popes avoided church councils like the
plague, because they regarded them as rivals to their own authority. But the Vati-
can Council changed all of that by making absolute the pope’s power and thus
making all future councils practically superfluous. The papacy today tolerates no
criticism from its own people. There was a time in the early history of the church
when priests, monks, and even the laity could express their criticisms of the
church and be heard. But that has all disappeared and today the Roman Church is
a total dictatorship with an infallible pope at its head. Says Dr. Walter M.
Montano, former editor of Christian Heritage, ‘All voices are silenced; protests
are crushed; dissenters are excommunicated. A total dictatorship—in spirit and
letter—rules every aspect of the Roman Catholic Church’ (booklet, Can a True
Catholic Be a Loyal American?, p. 14).

6. ERRORS OF THE POPES

10
 The decree of papal infallibility was as wicked as it was ridiculous. It certainly
was wicked, because it claimed for a man one of the attributes of God and
usurped the headship of Christ in the church. And it was ridiculous, because the
history of the popes reveals many grievous errors, moral and doctrinal, with one
pope often denying what another has affirmed. The claim to infallibility is so fan-
tastic that it is hard to take it seriously, since the ‘infallible’ church and the ‘infal-
lible’ popes have made so many mistakes. Many of their solemnly worded de-
crees are contradictory to the Word of God. And much of the prestige and tempo-
ral power of the Roman Church was gained through the use of forgeries such as
the alleged ‘gift of Constantine,’ or the Isidorian decretals.
Many of the popes have taught heretical doctrines. Some have been grossly
immoral, although the Roman theologians say that this does not affect their offi-
cial powers. Several have been condemned by later popes and church councils,
and some have been declared ‘anti-popes,’ that is, fraudulently chosen or elected,
and later dropped from the official record. Among popes committing serious er-
rors are the following:
Calixtus I (bishop of Rome, c. 221—223) is said by Hippolytus, a third-century
writer, to have been a kind of Unitarian, identifying the Father and the Son as one
indivisible Spirit.
Liberius, in 358, subscribed to a heretical Arian creed in order to regain the
bishopric of Rome under the heretical emperor Constantius. He broke with and
anathematized Athanasius, the great Trinitarian defender of the Nicene Creed,
who records him as an opponent.
Zosimus (417—418) pronounced Pelagius an orthodox teacher, but later re-
versed his position at the insistence of Augustine.
Vigilius refused to condemn certain heretical teachers at the time of the mono-
physite controversy, and boycotted the fifth Ecumenical Council which met at
Constantinople in When the Council proceeded without him and threatened to ex-
communicate and anathematize him, he submitted to its opinions, confessing that
he had been a tool of Satan (Cf. Hefele, one of the best known Roman Catholic
writers, History of the Ecclesiastical Councils, Vol. 4, p. 345).
Honorius (625—638). The heresy of Honorius was clearly official. Dr. Harris
has treated this case quite fully in the following paragraph:
‘The greatest scandal of this nature is pope Honorius. He specifically taught the Monothelite
heresy in two letters to the patriarch of Constantinople [that is, that Christ had only one will,
which by implication meant that he denied either His deity or His humanity]. The opinion was
condemned by the sixth ecumenical council (68o) which condemned and excommunicated Hon-
orius by name (Honorio haeretico anathema, Session XVI). The Roman breviary contained this
anathema until the sixteenth century (until the time of Luther, when apparently the Reformers
made so much of it that it was quietly dropped)…..Honorius was a heretic according to Roman
Catholic standards and was condemned by church councils and popes for 800 years. Such facts are
not known to most Protestants as they arise from the technical study of history. They naturally are
not publicized by Roman Catholics. But facts they are. And they entirely disprove the papal
claims’ (Fundamental Protestant Doctrines, 11 p. 13).

This condemnation of Honorius as a heretic shows clearly that the bishops of

that time had no idea whatever of papal infallibility. For how can a pope be infal-

11
lible and at the same time be condemned as a heretic? Also let it be noticed that
Honorius held the papal chair for thirteen years.
Gregory I (590—604) called anyone who would take the title of Universal
Bishop an antichrist; but Boniface III (607) compelled the emperor Phocas to con-
fer that title upon him, and it has been used by all later popes.
Hadrian II (867—872) declared civil marriages to be valid; but Pius VII
(I800—1823) condemned them as invalid.
A curious case arises in regard to Hadrian IV (1154—1159), who authorized
the invasion and subjugation of Ireland by the English king, Henry II, a conquest
that marks the beginning of English rule in Ireland. Hadrian, be it noted, was an
English pope, the only Englishman ever to hold that position. But that should
make no difference. A pope is a pope regardless of nationality or race. In view of
their later attitude towards English rule in Ireland, Roman Catholics will evidently
have to say that, in sanctioning the invasion, the pope’s decree did not relate to
morals. But it will hardly avail to say that the pope was not speaking ex cathedra.
For if he has that great power, but fails to use it aright in such momentous deci-
sions, or uses it carelessly, he surely is culpable.
How can one infallible pope, Eugene IV (1431—1447), condemn Joan of Arc
(1412—1431) to be burned alive as a witch, while another pope, Benedict XV, in
1920, declares her to be a saint?
There has been some dispute in the Roman Church concerning which version
of the Vulgate should be used. Pope Sixtus V (1585—1590) preferred the old ver-
sion, personally supervised every sheet of an edition then being published, and
prefixed an editorial bull to the first volume excommunicating anyone who, in
republishing the work, should make any alterations in the text. But it turned out
that the work contained so many errors that it had to be recalled, and another in-
fallible pope published another version, altered in many particulars.
The condemnation of Galileo for his theory that the earth moves around the sun
is a special case in point. Dr. Zacchello has stated this well:

‘Were popes Paul V (1605—1621) and Urban VIII (1623—1644) infallible when they con-
demned Galileo for holding a true scientific theory? Did they not declare the Copernican theory
was false, heretical, and contrary to the word of God? Did they not torture and imprison Galileo in
the dungeons of the Inquisition for not sharing their erroneous views? In their decree prohibiting
the book of Copernicus, De Revolutionibus, the congregation of the index, March 5, 1619, de-
nounced the new system of the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun as “utterly con-
trary to the Holy Scriptures”’ (Ins and Outs of Romanism, p. 28).

How is the decree of Clement XIV (July 21, 1773) suppressing the Jesuits to be
harmonized with the contrary decree of Pius VII (August 7, 1814) restoring them?
Sixtus V (1585—1590) recommended the reading of the Bible, but Pius VII
(1800—1823) and various other popes condemned that practice.
As regards infallibility in the moral sphere, consider these cases. Pope John XI
(931—936) was the illegitimate son of pope Sergius III by a wicked woman
named Marozia. The nephew of John XI, who took the name John XII (955—
964), was raised to the papacy at the age of 18 through the political intrigue of the
Tuscan party, which was then dominant in Rome, and proved to be a thoroughly
immoral man. His tyrannies and debaucheries were such that, upon complaint of

12
the people of Rome, the emperor Otto tried and deposed him. Some of the sins
enumerated in the charge were murder, perjury, sacrilege, adultery, and incest.
Yet he is reckoned as a legitimate pope through whom the unbroken chain of ap-
ostolic authority descends from Peter to the pope of the present day.
Alexander VI (1492—1503) was one of the Borgia popes, from Spain, and had
been made a cardinal at the age of 25. He had six illegitimate children, two of
whom were born after he became pope. The charge of adultery was brought
against him repeatedly. His third son, Caesar Borgia, was made a cardinal and
was appointed to command the papal armies. The intrigues and immoralities of
his daughter, Lucretia Borgia, brought a full measure of disgrace upon the papal
office. The Roman Catholic historian, Ludwig Pastor, in his History of the Popes,
grants that he lived the immoral life of the secular princes of his day, both as car-
dinal and as pope (V. 363; VI 140); that he obtained the papacy by the rankest
simony (V, 385); and that he brought that office into disrepute by his unconcealed
nepotism and lack of moral sense (VI, 139). The eloquent reformer, Savonarola,
urged his deposition, whereupon Alexander had him condemned as a heretic,
hanged, and publicly burned in 1498.
John XXIII (1410—1415) was deposed by the Council of Constance because of
simony and immorality, and the Roman Church now attempts to deny that he ever
was a legitimate pope. Apparently the recent John XXIII will have to be known as
pope John XXIII, the Second. During the period of history known as the Middle
Ages many of the popes were guilty of nearly every crime in the catalogue of sin.
Twenty-nine of those who held the office at one time or another, but who are now
said to have obtained it by fraud or otherwise to have been unfit for it, are now
listed as ‘anti-popes.’ Repeatedly the papal office was bought and sold by cardi-
nals and popes as unworthy men sought to gain control. These abuses, together
with many others, are described with surprising frankness and detail in a recent
book, The Papal Princes, by a Roman Catholic, Glenn D. Kittler, with the Nihil
Obstat of Daniel D. Flynn, S.T.D., Censor librorum, and the Imprimatur of cardi-
nal Spellman (1960; 358 pages; Funk & Wagnalls, New York).
In 1939 pope Pius XII was inaugurated as the 262nd pope. But in 1947 Vatican
scholars revised the official list of popes, dropped some, added some, questioned
others, and reduced the number to 261. St. Anacletus, who was supposed to have
reigned about the year 100, was eliminated when research showed that he and St.
Cletus, who reigned about the year 76, were the same person. Donus II (973) was
dropped when research showed that he never existed. Alexander V and John
XXIII, fifteenth-century figures, were relegated to the list of anti-popes, or false
claimants. The reign of John XIV (984) was once divided into two, erroneously
adding a non-existent John to the series. In 1958 pope John XXIII was inaugu-
rated as the 262nd pope. But in 1961 still another pope was deposed, Stephen II
(752). With the inauguration of Paul VI in 1963 he was accounted by some to be
the 262nd pope, although the 1963 Pontifical Yearbook has abandoned for the
present any attempt to number the popes, giving as its reason the impossibility of
determining the validity of some of the names. Quite a record we would say for a
church boasting infallibility, whether that infallibility be vested in its councils or
in its popes!

13
 We have called attention to the numerous false doctrines set forth by pope Pius
IX in his Syllabus of Errors (1864). We pick out just one for special mention as
completely contrary to our Western ideals of civil and ecclesiastical relations,
namely, that which declares that the church and the state should be united, with
the church (Roman Catholic) in the dominant position. In fact he went so far as to
declare that the separation of church and state is one of the principal errors of our
age. Recently, however, the Knights of Columbus have circulated a pamphlet in
which they declare that the pope, in condemning the separation of church and
state, did not have in mind the kind of separation that exists in the United States.
But the Syllabus made no exception for the United States. It was an unqualified
assertion of the basic principles that should govern the church and the state eve-
rywhere in the world. The United States has the same form of government today
that it had in 1864. Hence the Knights of Columbus are quite clearly resorting to
subterfuge, and are simply attempting to shield the Roman Church from responsi-
bility concerning one of its official doctrines that is diametrically opposed to the
American form of government. The almost universal feeling today, even among
enlightened Roman Catholics, is that the formulation and promulgation of the Syl-
labus of Errors was in itself a serious and embarrassing error.
And yet despite these cases of error and many others that could be cited, the
infallibility decree, which was retroactive and therefore applies to all earlier as
well as all later popes, officially pronounces all of the popes infallible as teachers
of faith and morals.
We should point out that there have been several popes who expressly dis-
claimed the attribute of infallibility (we may even say, the divine attribute of in-
fallibility, for only God is infallible as regards faith and morals), most conspicu-
ous of whom have been Vigilius, Innocent III, Clement IV, Gregory XI, Hadrian
VI, and Paul IV.
Thus Rome’s claim to infallibility is contradicted by Scripture, logic, and his-
tory. Dr Harris writes appropriately:

‘The fact is, the popes are not infallible. They preach and teach another gospel. They not only
contradict themselves, but contradict the Bible as well. All the fanfare of wealth, the tinsel of
ceremony, and the prestige of power, which we witness at Rome, cannot avail before God. The
present pope John XXIII is neither infallible nor orthodox nor the successor of Peter, nor of any
other of the holy apostles of Jesus Christ. He is an impostor as was the first John XXIII of the fif-
teenth century.’

As we have indicated, this alleged attribute of infallibility has been used only
very sparingly by the popes, evidently because they do not want to risk being
caught up by false statements. Apparently it has been formally invoked on only
three occasions—twice by pope Pius IX, once when he proclaimed his own infal-
libility, and once when without benefit of a church council he set forth the doc-
trine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary; and once by pope Pius
XII, when he promulgated the doctrine of the assumption of the Virgin Mary.
And, we would say, in each instance the pope employing it set forth colossal er-
ror. Seldom does the pope give any clear indication that he is using his boasted

14
powers; he prefers to keep the people guessing whether or not he is speaking au-
thoritatively.
Probably no other element of the papal system causes the Romanists more em-
barrassment than this doctrine of papal infallibility. In the first place it asserts a
doctrine that can be easily disproved; and in the second place it serves to focus
attention on the utter unreasonableness of the powers claimed by and for the pope.
To Protestants the whole ex cathedra business appears monstrous and vicious, in
fact, as sheer chicanery, perpetrated on a docile, uninformed, and unthinking peo-
ple.

FOOTNOTE
*
A graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary (Th.B., 1928; ThM., 1929), where he studied Sys-
tematic Theology under Dr. C. W. Hodge, his books include: The Reformed Doctrine of Predesti-
nation, Roman Catholicism, Studies In Theology, Immortality, The Millennium and A Harmony of
the Gospels.

15